we are now hearing the very

first arguments from today's historic hearing on same sex marriage. the audio still coming into msnbc as we speak. but we have excerpts to play. outside the courtroom, quite a scene. supporters, opponents and reporters there waiting to hear the arguments as well as the back and forth on this incredible issue over california's proposition 8. take a listen to an exchange between justices kennedy a. >> what do you see happening and when and how and what harm to the institution of marriage or to opposite sex couples? how does this cause and effect work? >> once again, i would reiterate that we don't believe that's the correct legal question before the court. that the correct question is the question of whether or not to

include same-sex marriage. >> are you conceding that there is no harm or denigration? >> no. i'm not conceding that. >> that seems to me that you should have to address that. >> and moments after the hearing ended, the attorneys from both sides, plaintiffs and their families, walked out of the court to the steps to address the cameras. >> we are confident where the american people are going. we don't know what the united states supreme court will do but we're very gratified that they listened, they heard, they asked hard questions and there's no denying where the right is. and we hope that the supreme court will come out in that way when they make this decision in june. >> we look forward to a day when proposition 8 is finally and officially eliminated and equality is restored to the state of california.

>> i just want to say how incredibly proud we are of our parents. we love them. we love our family and we look forward to the day when we will be treated equally just like our neighbors' families. >> i think the most remarkable thing that happened in there was that there was no attempt to defend the ban on gay and lesbian marriage. there was no indication of any harm. all that was said in there was that this important constitutional right ought to be decided at the state level as opposed to the federal government. but as a federal constitution that we have. the simple question of how do you establish marriage equality, i think you can see how far we've come in the last few years. >> and back to the incredible scene outside the supreme court. you saw people there waving

flags, supporters held rallies on the steps of the court. gay parents brought their young children and said the country is ready for gay equality. and the first openly gay bishop slowing his support. >> let's be strong and keep our eye on the prize. we can persevere in this struggle no matter what the supreme court decides in a couple of months, because we know how this is going to end, don't we? >> this is going to end with our full acceptance and inclusion into the life and citizenship of this nation. and even the conservatives, those out there making all that noise, even they know it. >> while the national organization of marriage led its own rally against same-sex marriage, the group marched from the washington mall to the court, defending what they say traditional definition of marriage. >> one cannot put common sense

aside. we should not alter the purpose and meaning of marriage. when we stop this action, the court will respect our differences. and that marriage is between one man and one woman. >> nbc's justice correspondent pete williams live outside the supreme court. before we play another excerpt of the audio, set the stage for our audience, if you will, on thing that resonated from those oral arguments on both sides today. >> i think, tamron, it is quite possible despite all the of the noise outside the court today, about rights and the culture and where we are and where we should go with marriage, that when all this is said and done, the supreme court may produce a ruling that has nothing whatsoever to do with gay marriage. and the reason i say that is because it does seem the most likely outcome for this case is for the supreme court, because

there is no clear majority to say that they're prepared to say there is a sweeping right to same-sex marriage nationwide or even in the states that grant civil unions or domestic partnerships like california, nor does there seem to be a very strong sentiment for upholding prop 8. that i think what the court, this is just what's most likely from today's oral argument. that the court will simply say, this case came here the wrong way. it has all sorts of defects in the way it arrived at the court and we're just going to pretend like it never came here in the first place. that's my best guess for what will happen at the end of the day. now, to get there, of course, you did have the liberals asking, as you did at the very beginning, what is wrong with granting marriage rights to same sex couples? how does that hurt marriage? and you heard chuck cooper, the lawyer for prop 8 say that's not our burden. all we have to say is that it is enough.

there's a rational reason for setting marriage aside for traditional couples. that's the fact that they can produce children. but the court's liberal justices were very skeptical about that as a justification. what if the state decided to say if you're over 55, you can't get married because you're not likely to have any children. that would seem to be a nonstarter. but justice kennedy who may be the pivotal vote here seemed to be very skeptical about whether the court should have taken this case at all. here's what he said. >> the problem with the case is that you're really asking, particularly because of the sociological evidence you cite, for us to go into uncharted waters and you can play with that metaphor. there is a wonderful definition, a cliff, whatever it is. but you're doing so in a case where the opinion is very narrow. basically, that once the state goes halfway, it has to go all the way or 70% of the way. and you're doing so in a case

where there is a substantial question on standing. i just wonder if the case was properly granted. >> there is the key question. was the case properly granted. now, that would seem to tee up the idea that justice kennedy is willing to say, we should never have accepted this case in the first place. that happens up here. the court has a phrase for it. they say the case is dismissed as improv dentally granted. if you had to ask my guess today on what will happen, that's what will happen here. who knows when the decision comes out, if it will come pout way but i think that is a likely outcome. what would that mean? that would mean that same-sex marriage could resume in california. that the lower court ruling would stand that declared same-sex marriage unconstitutional in the state. and if that happened, then that would be the end of it and there would be no nationwide precedent. >> thank you very much. we greatly appreciate you

joining us. let me bring in jeffrey rosen. legal affairs editor. i know you heard the conversation with pete and you heard the comments from justice kennedy. let me get your reaction to even questioning whether this case should have been accepted. >> i think pete gave an excellent analysis. it is true that justice kennedy was far more skeptical than many people expected about whether the case should go forward. i think before the argument, there was a widespread discussion that he would either rule narrowly that california having granted a right couldn't take it back or he might even rule broadly that there had to be gay marriage across the whole country. by focusing on these jurisdictional questions of standing, whether the case should be dismissed as improvidentally granted, he raised a very real possibility that it might be dismissed on technical grounds. the fact that obama was supporting the idea there was no standing might give weight to kennedy's instincts there. >> let me play another excerpt of justice kennedy on the rights

of same sex couples in regard to children. >> there is an immediate legal injury or legal, what could be a legal injury, and that's the voice of these children. there are some 40,000 children in california, according to the brief, that live with same sex parents. and they want their parents to have full recognition and full status. the voice of those children is important in this case, don't you think? >> jeff, how important of a factor are these children? we heard from the plaintiffs, two of their twin boys were present and talked about how proud they are of their parents. but legally, and the comments with justice kennedy there, how important or significant are these kids? >> they're hugely important. justice kennedy is very concerned about the interests of children. and one of the central questions is are children better or worse

in straight or gay marriages? and the opponents of gay marriage say we have to preserve marriage for straight couples because kids need all the help they can get. the support of the gay marriage say that makes no sense to withhold those benefits from the children of gay couples since after all, they can adopt in california whether they're married or not. so they can have parents. the question is whether they'll be in will hely recognized marriages. the fact that kennedy was focusing on that, that he was thinking about not about the parents but the kids, he may recognize the right to gay marriage as many people expect. >> before i let you go, i want to get your impression. we're getting this audio in and we'll play as much as we can within this hour. what has struck you, at least from what you heard today, and the preliminary analysis? we won't know until june though. >> well, if the court does decide the case on the merits, i was struck by his question. she said to charles cooper, what possible interests could be served in denying gay couples

the right to playery? he kept responding, responsible pro creation. straight people, since they can have kids out of wedlock need the strong institution of marriage to make sure they don't go out and have adulterous affairs. that makes no sense. there is nothing about granting marriage for gay people will make straight people be responsible. and the truth is the reason most people disapprove of gay marriage, both reason are ones the supreme court has ruled are constitutionally illegitimate. that's why the opponents are reduced to giving this rather implausible reason. responsible procreation that probably didn't motivate a lot of people who voted for prop 8 and a bunch of the justices find farfetched. >> thank you so much for your time. let me bring in our "news nation" political panel. lisa and "washington post" columnist and msnbc contributor, jonathan capehart. thank you both for joining us. first let me start with you, jonathan, and up on what he

brought up. this remark by justice kagan regarding what harm if you will would be to society. this whole idea of procreation. that it was a nonstart he, i believe that is the language pete williams used. if you're talking about people over 50 lou can't have children, then that is eliminated from this idea of what a marriage should be or who should be able to be married. >> i was just listening to that part of the arguments before coming on. and justice kagan was extremely skeptical. if your only rationale is the monthcreation argument and then, you go in and the justices are extremely skeptical so kagan saying, what about couples that are 55 or older? do you then deny them marriage licenses? would it be constitutional to do that? and the guy had no response. i mean, they are wedged in. i can't remember if it was pete or if it was the legal analyst before who said, this is all

they've got. if this is the only thing that they can argue for denying same sex couples the right to marry, where do they go? >> no one can come out of those, a utilities saying which way they believed definitively these justices will go. the confidence from the plaintiffs who even said on "meet the press" that they don't expect this to be close at all. but, and i hate this notion of reading the tea leaves, but no one can say with certainty we've the argument you just presented. >> i just wrote a piece trying to -- >> you want to manage expectations why? >> because remember during the health care arguments, the moment the arguments were over, that first day, people said, oh, my god, it is unconstitutional. obama care will be unconstitutional and we'll start all over again. it was ruled constitutional. it is still the law of the land. there were tough questions asked. there were tough anecdotes thrown out there. but ultimately, we will find out in june what the court will do.

but i personally think that given the argument that's i've heard so far, that at a minimum we could be seeing what pete williams reported, which is there could be legal marriage in california this year. >> and lisa, let me bring you in. i want to read that portion, regarding that the supreme court should not go broad. they should be careful here. and this is david's assertion. is the country ready for a decision requiring all 50 states to recognize such unions immediately? brown triggered a notorious back lash in the south and the north leading to what the education scholar has called the resegregation of american schooling. history suggests it would be unwise for the supreme court to impose a uniform solution on the nation now. doing so could touch off huge civil resistance in the most conservative states. that's david cole, op ed in the new york times. we know even a new poll out today, a large majority of folks

now support same sex marriage. very different picture than ten years ago. >> the argument that's raised in that editorial is one of a message that's been coming out in the last few days, partly to downer what jonathan was raising. this notion that it is really hard to marshal evidence arguing against, arguing that prop 8 should be upheld. so the message has been coming out. the court should take it slowly. there will be a big back lash and they should decide the case the way pete said they might. not reach much of a ruling and kick it down the road for another day. >> we talk about timing. i know there was a comparison that cell phones and the internet were not around. i think one of the justices referred to it as modern examples, a time comparison of us having serious conversations about same-sex marriage. nevertheless, you've got democrats just this week shifting their position, if you will, on same-sex marriage, mark

werner of virginia, mark begich of alaska, claire mccaskill yesterday. we know hillary clinton made her statement last week as well. how do you measure time when something is moving so rapidly here? >> right. and of course you had bill clinton who signed the defense of marriage act coming out against it in the last few days. you're right. this issue has been moving very, very fast. it hasn't even been ten years since massachusetts became the first state to legalize same-sex marriages. the momentum has been building in a lot of quarters and i think everyone is waiting to see whether justice kennedy in particular, whether he wants to make his mark and go down as being in support of same-sex marriage or whether or not there is just not support for going their right now in the court. >> absolutely. we're also looking at what was described as a political wedge issue that may have all but disappeared. i want to play what nicole

wallace, republican strategist said this morning on morning joe. >> there were a lot of alarming things that happened at cpac. the one happy thing was that they went around trying to find young conservatives who were against gay marriage and they couldn't find any. i mean, even the youngest, most rabid, most devoted conservatives see this as an equal rights issue. >> so when you hear nicole there, does that give you any confidence at all, if we end one a decision where this is decided state by state? with her remarks regarding the most conservative of the party at cpac. >> it just means, let's say the court doesn't do anything. and it continues to go state by state, it will. it will take decades as opposed,le many decades as opposed to one or two given court action. but you know, the action that happened at cpac, wonderful. but go back to the presidential election of 2012. in the debates, gay, lesbian,

same sex couple, gay marriage, anything related to gays and lesbians didn't come up at all in those debates that president obama and mitt romney had. that to me said a lot. the fact that the candidates were silent on gay issues meant that it ceased to be a wedge issue. what we're seeing from the 131 people, republicans who signed the amicus brief to 58% of the american people saying they support same-sex marriage to 51 or 52% of young republicans, 18 to 45 saying that they support same-sex marriage. it is not an if the country will grant same-sex marriage. it is a matter of when. >> let me give your comments saying, at least for her, the one happy or bright spot you saw at cpac was that you had these devoted conservatives who see this as an equal rights issue. if the supreme court said it is left state to state, is that a sign of encouragement or is it just delay and as jonathan

pointed out, maybe still years to come? >> i'm intrigued by what justice kennedy said that he said this case in particular was not the right case. there are other cases that are already out there. from nevada and in other states that could also reach the court and give it another opportunity to address this. without leaving to it a state by state solution will. >> all right. lisa, jonathan, thank you very much. i greatly appreciate your voices. investigation news, an immigrant father of five who is the sole winner of that $338 million powerball ticket is claiming his big prize right now. they've got a live news conference. we hope to bring you the latest from the lucky winner. a new poll out today on same-sex marriage shows the country's evolution on same-sex marriage parallels the president's historic announcement 11 months ago. we'll speak with presidential historian douglas brinkley. and join our conversation on twitter. [ male announcer ] what are happy kids made of?

bikes and balloons, and noodles on spoons. a kite, a breeze, a dunk of grilled cheese. catches and throws, and spaghettio's. a wand, some wings, soup with good things. sidewalks and doodles and wholesome noodles. puddles and pails and yes, puppy dog tails. for a lunch like this, there's a hug and a kiss. because that's what happy kids are made of. campbell's. it's amazing what soup can do. missing workouts because of sports injuries. runner's knee... ...it's right there. shin splints... ...it hurt right on this side. injuries like these can come from the pounding your feet take. but i found something that helps. dr. scholl's active series insoles

with triple zone protection to help reduce pain from three sports injuries: runner's knee, shin splints, plantar fasciitis. i can feel the difference. i'm a believer. i'm back working out. i'm a believer. try dr. scholl's active series. i'm a believer. to prove to you that aleve is the better choice for him, he's agreed to give it up. that's today? [ male announcer ] we'll be with him all day as he goes back to taking tylenol. i was okay, but after lunch my knee started to hurt again. and now i've got to take more pills. ♪ yup. another pill stop. can i get my aleve back yet? ♪ for my pain, i want my aleve. ♪ [ male announcer ] look for the easy-open red arthritis cap.

we hope to have morning arguments from the california supreme court to bring you. one of the president's closest advisers was in court for the proceedings. jay carney was updated on what the justices had to say. a lot of attention has been devoted to president obama's historic evolution and public support for marriage equality. he made the announcement 11 months ago after vice president joe biden voiced his support on "meet the press." >> at a certain point i just concluded that for me personally, it is important for

me to go ahead and affirm that i think same sex couples should be able to get married. >> the president's opinion reflects a majority of americans. our nbc news/"wall street journal" poll shows a more than 20% shift to gay marriage support over the past decade. thank you for joining us. >> thank you for having me. >> the fact that valley jarrett was in court. we know her closeness to the president, what does that tell you? >> that president obama is very much behind gay marriage. i thought it was self-evident in his second inaugural address when he e-quaid stonewall the famous turning point with selma and the seneca falls movements, the civil rights for women. and now you see him doubling down and the polls are in his favor. the polls seem to favor same-sex

marriage so it evolution has coincided with america's evolution. >> and we've seen this at least with regard to his own children. i want to play more of what he said in may 2012 when he was interviewed by robin roberts. >> malia and sasha, they have parents whose parents are same-sex couple. and there have been times when michelle and i have been sitting around the dinner table and we've been talking about their friends and their parents, and malia and sasha, it wouldn't dawn on them that somehow their friends' parents would be treated differently. it doesn't make sense to them. and frankly, that's the kind of thing that promise a change of perspective. >> and to that point, a change in perspective, you have rob portman's son who is gay and mr. portman coming out in support of same-sex marriage. justice roberts' own cousin was

there for the oral arguments. she's gay as well. she said she believes her cousin will do the good thing, whatever that means. but nevertheless the president in 2012 bringing it back to his own family which he's done so many times when he supported different issues. >> and i think that's what most americans are doing. i'm friends with an historian named martin at princeton who wrote a book on black mountain school of poetry and i didn't realize that he was struggling to just get benefits for his significant other. he is probably going to get married just so he can make sure that he has health benefits for the person he loves of all of us are touched by some story. so we're seeing america evolve just as before 1920, women didn't have the right to vote. the jim crow laws in the 1950s and '60s. it has gone step by step to change the consciousness of america. and president obama has not necessarily been a leader on this issue. but he is cresting the wave of public opinion and at a couple of key moments, he's shown real

leadership as in the second inaugural. >> you and i both know there were people who would noted if joe biden had not made his comments on "meet the press" that sunday morning, that the president would not have stepped out in support of same-sex marriage. at the time that he did, he has not been a leader there. at the en, when history looks back, it will be joe biden that was the wind beneath his wings, if i can quota song? >> well, joe biden has earned himself a star in history with that moment. it will be an important part of his legacy. but barack obama was close on his heels. and after all, it is the president, not the vice president that history pays most attention to. and i think in the last year, president obama has been quite brave on this issue and you see him now, particularly grappling with california's proposition 8 bringing a huge counter brief to, right at the crucial moment. how this is going to play out, we don't know yet. gay marriage. but obama will look good in

history and one might say his daughters helped educate him. that does happen to parents. it is something they recognize through their kids that changes their views. he has never been vehemently opposed to gay marriage but i think he has come full circle and is actually beloved in gay american circles. his public, his opinion ratings within those groups are very high, president obama. >> thank you so much. doug brinkley for joining us with your perspective, how this will play a factor in president obama's legacy. we're waiting to play more audio for you. as soon as we get that sound turned around, we'll hear some of the arguments made in the supreme court. still ahead, senators now threatening to fbl the gun legislation that is expected to come up for debate next month. it is one of those things we thought you should know today. go by themselves. no they don't. hey son. have fun tonight.

♪ ♪ back against the wall ♪ ain't nothin to me ♪ ain't nothin to me [ crowd murmurs ] hey! ♪ [ howls ] ♪ it will if it's new outlast stay fabulous foundation. it's a primer, concealer and foundation in one for all day flawless skin. new outlast stay fabulous from easy, breezy, beautiful covergirl. we create easy-to-use, powerful trading tools for all. look at these streaming charts!

they're totally customizable and they let you visualize what might happen next. that's genius! we knew you needed a platform that could really help you elevate your trading. so we built it. chances of making this? it's a lot easier to find out if a trade is potentially profitable. just use our trade & probability calculator and there it is. for all the reasons you trade options - from income to risk management to diversification - you'll have the tools to get it done. strategies. chains. positions. we put 'em all on one screen! could we make placing a trade any easier? mmmm...could we? around here, options are everything. yes mom, i'll place a long call to you tomorrow. i promise. open an account today and get a free 13-month eibd™ subscription when you call 1-888-280-0159 now. optionsxpress by charles schwab. anncr: and many of the tornado's victims are... without homes tonight. girl: first, i saw it on cable. then i read about it online.

i found out how to help. i downloaded the info. i spoke up... and told my friends... and they told their friends... and together, we made a difference. anncr: and tornado relief has been pouring in from... across the country. girl: we might be hundreds of miles apart... but because we're connected, it's like we're all neighbors.

president obama has stepped into the mayer's race. she work in the administration in housing and urban develop many. the letter endorsing her, mr. clinton writes, she has person identified good, honored and effective government. guard setty was an early supporter. he was the top vote getter. joining me now live, senior political editor mark murray. it has been noted the clintons are loyal to those who have been loyal to them. is that why we're seeing the former president get into this race? >> absolutely. it is standard operating procedure for a politician. you want to reward those who were good to you and helped you along the way. of course, that famous obama/hillary fight was five years ago and we're still kind of talking about it and seeing the reverberations.

wendy greuel, eric garcetti. it is a very strong relationship between president obama and his former secretary of state. five years later you have these obama/hillary clinton proxy wars popping up. this is the latest example. >> this is also an example, a remind per bill clinton is willing to get even into a mayoral race and larger statewide races and maybe even a presidency soon. >> well, right. he has played key roles in 2010 primaries, 2012 ones, as well as this mayoral contest in los angeles. so this is perhaps yet another sign. of course, we don't know what hillary clinton's presidential ambitions are and her intentions. we have a long way to go. this is another sign of the clintons still being involved and playing politics and doing the little thing you might want to do to have perhaps the

endorsement and support of the future mayor of los angeles. that's never a bad thing. >> never a bad thing. if she wins, she would be l.a.'s first female mayor. that certainly is not a fact that should be lost, especially again, if you're looking way down the line at possible clinton run. >> you might have females as the mayors in both los angeles and new york city. both are having contest this is year and that's a potential story to watch. >> mark murray, thank you very much. coming up, well, meet the new millionaire. he is a father of five from the dominican republic. he owns a tiny grocery store in jersey. well, he owns it. with you i don't know if he'll be showing up for work anymore. we'll introduce you to him and his big moment of glory. but first, there is a lot going on today. here's something we thought you should know. a congressional report reveal the federal government spent nearly $3.7 million on form he presidents last year. the cost covered a $200 a year

pension, staff salaries, office space and other expenses which president cost the government the most? according to the report, george w. bush got just over $1.3 million including 85,000 in phone bills. president clinton came in second. he had the highest office rental cost in new york city. three republican senators, rand paul and ted cruz and mike lee are threatening to filibuster gun control legislation. they are saying they will not let legislation proceed. earlier this month, how can you forget, rand paul gave a nearly 13-hour filibuster speech opposing the president's drone policy. and an arizona gun store owner said he will not sell mark kelly the ar-15 rifle that he bought earlier this month. the gun store owner explained his decision in a facebook post saying that kelly was buying the rifle for reasons other than personal use. the transaction has not been

completed because the store is required to hold the gun for 20 days. kelly who was a gun owner has said his purchase was plenty to demonstrate how easy it is to buy a semi-automatic rifle. those are the things we thought you should know. chunky soup. mom? who's mom? i'm the giants mascot. the giants don't have a mascot! ohhh! eat up! new jammin jerk chicken soup has tasty pieces of chicken with rice and beans. hmmm. for giant hunger! thanks mom! see ya! whoaa...oops! mom? i'm ok. grandma? hi sweetie! she operates the head. [ male announcer ] campbell's chunky soup. it fills you up right.

we have developing news in that $338 million powerball jackpot. in the last few minutes the new jersey lottery officials confirmed that pedro quezada, a 34-year-old from the dominican republic and father of five is the lucky holder of the winning ticket. a very happy quezada speaking in spanish said he felt pure joy when he learn he was the winner, and that the first thing he wants to do is to help his family. when asked if he plans to return to the dominican republic or if he plans to stay in the u.s., he said he needs to clear his mind before making any big decisions. coming up, more on the same-sex marriage debate. we'll talk to an ohio state university student about an article he wrote explaining why he says straight allies are

critical to the gay rights movement. but first, an update on comcast's hero hiring initiative. we've reached our goal of hiring 1,000 vets ahead of schedule. we're now committed to hiring an additional 1,000 more. we all have one. that perfect spot. a special place we go to smooth out the ripples of the day. it might be off a dock or on a boat. upstream or in the middle of nowhere. wherever it may be, casting a line in the clear, fresh waters of michigan lets us leave anything weighing us down back on shore. our perfect spot is calling. our perfect spot is pure michigan. your trip begins at michigan.org.

in that time there've been some good days. and some difficult ones. but, through it all we've persevered, supporting some of the biggest ideas in modern history.

so why should our history matter to you? because for more than two centuries, we've been helping ideas move from ambition to achievement. ♪ and the next great idea could be yours. ♪ we are getting more audio from the historic supreme court hearing on california's prop 8. here is justice samuel alito. >> us to step in and render a decision on the effects of this institution which is newer than cell phones or the internet? we are not, we do not have the ability to see the future. >> let me bring in jeffrey rosen, legal affairs editor at the new republic. what is your take on where alito was going with the comparison of

the technology and the unions, same sex union? >> well, there has been so much discussion of whether the court should get ahead of public opinion and alito has been very reluctant to be too far ahead of the ush can ever. so here he was suggesting we don't know what the effects on kids are. there may be future advances in child bearing. we do not want to make the same mistake that the court made, according to some conservatives in roe versus wade where it came down to a decision the country was not ready to accept. even though obama administration didn't want to take a really broad ruling here, the solicitor general surprised many people by saying we should only require gay marriage and marriage equality in the eight states that recognize civil unions. and they urged the court not to create a national right to gay marriage that would apply to the entire country. >> when you start talking about, for example, you don't know the effects of something. most recently as it relates to allowing gays into, for example, the military. you had many people, many

organizations who said it would cause morale to drop and would cause all kinds of issues and we now know actual reports from the military, that that is not the case. >> that's absolutely right. the very same, a utilities were made by people trying to support bans on interracial marriage in the 1960s. and the court rejected those arguments. in other cases, justice alito has been willing to take leap in lightest new technology. and he has held a global positioning tracking devices can't be used to track us 24/7. so it was palpable to see alito and the other justices like kennedy, too, wrestling with this question of how far the court should get ahead of public opinion but recognizing on the other hand, if the right of marriage equality is a fundamental right, it shouldn't matter that we're uncertain about what the effects would be. it is time to declare it now. >> let me play another excerpt. justice roberts on labeling marriage. >> if you tell a child that somebody has to be their friend,

i suppose you can force the child to say, this is my friend. but it changes the definition of what it means to be a friend. that's it seems to me what the quarters of proposition 8 are saying. all you're interested in is the label and you insist on the definition of the label. >> your analysis of that comment? >> i thought that was a fascinating comment. absolutely right. supporters. marriage equality are saying, gay people are entitled to the same respect and dignity as straight people when it comes to marriage. so you can't create a separate category calling it civil unions because that denies us full respect. and that's why saying you're forcing someone to say they're your friend was such an interesting choice of words for roberts. >> doesn't it also then, it is not just about a label. it would also be about rights as an individual's spouse as opposed to a civil union. to speed ball it to tomorrow, for example, with doma. we're about federal benefits that would go to an individual's

spouse as opposed to a friend as used by justice roberts. >> that's a very good point. it is true in california, you could call it just a label because gay couple in california do have all rights except for the label. but tomorrow as you say, we'll learn that there are huge consequences to that label. which include tax benefits, the ability to get housing on military bases if you're a couple in the military. >> absolutely. it even go down to, there was a new york time article about people, their spouse, the person they wanted to marry would not be a legal citizen of the united states. something afforded to couple right now who are in quote/unquote traditional marriages. so there are implications beyond a label of calling someone your spouse. i want to play another excerpt. juts kagan on age and get your thoughts on the other side. >> i can just assure you, if both the woman and the man are over the age of 55, there are not a lot of children coming out

of that marriage. >> you know, it is interesting to hear laughter in the court but especially on this. even on "meet the press" this sunday, one of the guests talked about the issue of procreation. and being able to have children. and the issue was brought up, what if a couple is unable to conceive. are they not then married or eligible to be married? in this case, kagan brought up age. >> this was such a fascinating thing. strom thurmond who was in his '80s wasn't in congress when he was confirm. the central argument made by the supporters of proposition 8 is that it is necessary to ban gay marriage to promote responsible procreation among straight people. that means if you are going to have kids, you are not going to have an accidental kid out of wedlock. because only straight people but gay people can have kids accidentally. and justice kagan said how are you telling me banning marriage for gay people is going to encourage straight people to

procreate responsibly and not to have kids out of wedlock? it didn't make any sense to her. a lot of lawyers and the trial below abandoned the argument and said this doesn't really fly. >> thank you so much for your insight. we greatly appreciate you joining us. thank you. meantime, a new poll, a new cbs news poll out today shows 53% of americans think gay marriage should be legal. support is even greater among those under the age of 30. 73% of that group say same sex marriage should be legal. here's attorney ted olson who argued before the supreme court today against california's prop 8. >> we are confident where the american people are going with this. we don't know for sure what the united states supreme court will do. but we're very, very gratified that they listened, they heard, they asked hard questions and there is no denying where the right is and we hope the supreme court will come out in that way when they make this decision in june.

>> joining me now live, some from under the 30 age group, ohio state university english major eric rogers who writes, he wrote an article called why straight allies are critical to the gay rights movement. thank you for joining us. this was posted on the "huffington post" website. was that a result of you walking around and talking with other students? >> well, when i wrote in the article, i mentioned how a close friend of mine came out to me and confessed he was having feelings for a man. as i said in the article, i realized that it is kind of sad that he was so hesitant to share that. and i think that straight allies really need to come out more in support of their gay friends to show them that like, they be only have support in their own community but we're not all opposed to gay marriage and we're all there to help them out. >> how closely is the supreme court being watched at your university? >> it is not as big a deal as i

would have thought it would be. you don't hear a lot of it. a lot of students aren't really aware of it. there are groups like the young democrats that are following it. >> do you believe they're not paying attention because it is one of those things as the poll indicated, 73% of those under 30 say they support same sex marriage. so is it, you hear people saying that time is on the side those who support same-sex marriage. is it a foregone conclusion to young people like yourself that eventually you'll see same-sex marriage legal? >> i think that's a good point. i can definitely see that mindset. i think myself that without a doubt, i'll see gay marriage be legal in my lifetime. that kind of complacent attitude i think we really have to steer away from. the movement at this point in time has so much momentum. this is when you have to push forward. >> you have an interesting article that you have posted.

it is on "huffington post." thank you very much for your time. we greatly appreciate you joining us. >> thank you for having me. coming up, our "news nation" gut check. we're back after a quick break. ♪ you know my heart burns for you... ♪ i'm up next, but now i'm singing the heartburn blues. hold on, prilosec isn't for fast relief. cue up alka-seltzer. it stops heartburn fast. ♪ oh what a relief it is! i really like your new jetta! and you want to buy one like mine because it's so safe, right?

yeah... yeah... i know what you've heard -- iihs top safety pick for $159 a month -- but, i wish it was more dangerous, like a monster truck or dune buggy! you can't have the same car as me! [ male announcer ] now everyone's going to want one. let's get a jetta. [ male announcer ] volkswagen springtoberfest is here and there's no better time to get a jetta. that's the power of german engineering. right now lease one of four volkswagen models for under $200 a month. visit vwdealer.com today. only hertz gives you a carfirmation. hey, this is challenger. i'll be waiting for you in stall 5.

it confirms your reservation and the location your car is in, the moment you land. it's just another way you'll be traveling at the speed of hertz.

hand in hand. so make sure your kids are active 60 minutes every day. you'll help them feel good and even perform better in school. the more you know. pete williams reported it was a day of tough questions by the justices and while the court could ultimately rule to strike down the law, they could very possibly do so on narrow grounds that would allow or would apply to just the state of california.

so given what you've heard, the excerpts that we've played the entire hour, what does your gut tell you? do you think the supreme court will limit its decision in the prop 8 case to california? or will they make a broader ruling on gay marriage? go to facebook.com. thanks for hanging with us. we'll be back for you tomorrow, of course. another big day at the supreme court. doma is the focus. "the cycle" is up next. (announcer) at scottrade, our clients trade and invest exactly how they want. with scottrade's online banking, i get one view of my bank and brokerage accounts with one login... to easily move my money when i need to. plus, when i call my local scottrade office, i can talk to someone who knows how i trade. because i don't trade like everybody. i trade like me. i'm with scottrade. (announcer) scottrade. awarded five-stars from smartmoney magazine.

a regular guy with an irregular heartbeat. the usual, bob? not today. [ male announcer ] bob has afib: atrial fibrillation not caused by a heart valve problem, a condition that puts him at greater risk for a stroke. [ gps ] turn left. i don't think so. [ male announcer ] for years, bob took warfarin, and made a monthly trip to the clinic to get his blood tested. but not anymore. bob's doctor recommended a different option: once-a-day xarelto®. xarelto® is the first and only once-a-day prescription blood thinner for patients with afib not caused by a heart valve problem, that doesn't require routine blood monitoring. like warfarin, xarelto® is proven effective to reduce the risk of an afib-related stroke. there is limited data on how these drugs compare when warfarin is well managed. no routine blood monitoring means bob can spend his extra time however he likes. new zealand! xarelto® is just one pill a day, taken with the evening meal. and with no dietary restrictions, bob can eat the healthy foods he likes.